mike@bambi.UUCP (Michael Caplinger) (10/02/85)
In all fairness, the target of the September ASAT test, P78-1, was an Air Force-launched, DARPA-funded satellite with a number of armed forces experiments on board, and I would have to say that the government had a perfect right to shoot it down, if you believe that the government owns the things it funds. Any argument against the choice of target would have to hinge on whether it was in the public interest to destroy this particular satellite. I am certainly not for continued ASAT testing, and any discussion of that should probably occur elsewhere, but I was under the false impression conveyed by earlier messages that the ASAT target was a private scientific satellite. - Mike
julian@osu-eddie.UUCP (Julian Gomez) (10/05/85)
> In all fairness, the target of the September ASAT test, P78-1, was > an Air Force-launched, DARPA-funded satellite with a number of > armed forces experiments on board, and I would have to say that > the government had a perfect right to shoot it down, if you > believe that the government owns the things it funds. Any argument > against the choice of target would have to hinge on whether it > was in the public interest to destroy this particular satellite. >... They own the Denver Mint and the Federal Building here in Columbus, so they can shoot those down if they feel like it? Come to think of it, that might be in the public interest {:-) -- "If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?" Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez Computer Graphics Research Group, The Ohio State University {ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julian
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (10/05/85)
In article <121@bambi.UUCP> mike@bambi.UUCP (Michael Caplinger) writes: >In all fairness, the target of the September ASAT test, P78-1, was >an Air Force-launched, DARPA-funded satellite with a number of >armed forces experiments on board, and I would have to say that >the government had a perfect right to shoot it down, if you >believe that the government owns the things it funds. Any argument >against the choice of target would have to hinge on whether it >was in the public interest to destroy this particular satellite. Well, I've worked for DARPA-funded projects myself, and I think that, had some military people walked in one day and blown up my VAX, I think I would have complained. I also think I would have gotten a good deal of sympathy. After all, they funded the thing, but I was using it, it was being useful to me in my research, and they could surely have used something else for target practice. What they own and what they have an ethical right to destroy are two different things. I believe they have no ethical right to use an operating, useful scientific experiment as a test target. That they own it is probable, but that that means they can destroy it on a whim is not at all obvious. Ownership of property does not give you the right to use it as a detriment to society. Is it in the public interest to destroy a working scientific experiment providing data about solar activity, or is it not? Do I really have to answer something that obvious? Of course it isn't. Was it necessary? No it wasn't. Leaving aside arguments about whether ASAT is in the public interest in the first place, if it was worth the money to put it up, it certainly was worth the nearly nothing it cost to keep it up.